DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Status of Claims The present Office action is responsive to the application as filed on 10-17-2023. As directed, claims 1-6 are currently pending examination. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. The second driving shaft of claim 1. The second first fixing shaft of claim 1. The second first protrusion of claim 1. The second second protrusion of claim 1. The second fixing shaft of claim 1. The second first peripheral plate of claim 2. The second second peripheral plate of claim 2. The second through orifice of claim 2. The second first bearing of claim 2. The second coupling orifice of claim 2. The second bolt of claim 2. The second second bearing of claim 2. The second first rack of claim 5. The second second rack and its part of claim 6. Primary Examiner notes that in several cases, one of the two recited structures are shown in the instant figures, but in each case outlined above, the second of a pair of similar elements is not specifically outlined and presented with like reference numerals. As a second structure is claimed, each of the second structures above should be shown in the figures to comply with 37 CFR 1.121. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Objections Claim s 1-2 are objected to because of the following informalities: At claim 1, line 1, it is suggested that “a” be added before “popliteal” for clarity. At claim 1, line 4, it is suggested that “also having” be replaced with “further includes” for clarity . At claim 1, line 9, it is suggested that “a driven segmenting” be replaced with “a driven segment” for consistency with line 13. At claim 1, line 9, it is suggested that “the other end” be replaced with “an opposite end” for clarity as the limitation has not been introduced. At claim 1, line 19, it is suggested that “at least one first protrusion” be replaced with “at least one of the two first protrusions” for consistency. At claim 1, line 21, it is suggested that “so that one swing arm actuates” be replaced with “such that one swing arm is configured to actuate” to avoid recitation of method steps in an apparatus claim. At claim 1, line 27, it is suggested that “at least one second protrusion” be replaced with “at least one of the two second protrusions” for consistency. At claim 1, line 29, it is suggested that “so that the other swing arm actuates” be replaced with “such that a second of the two swing arms is configured to actuate” to avoid recitation of method steps in an apparatus claim. At claim 2, line 3, it is suggested that “ parallely extending” be replaced with “extending parallel to each other” for clarity. At claim 2, line 6, it is suggested that “the other end” be replaced with “an opposite end” as the limitation has not been introduced. At claim 2, line 8, it is suggested that “using” be deleted for clarity. At claim 2, lines 9-10, it is suggested that “ parallely extending” be replaced with “extending parallel to each other” for clarity. At claim 2, line 11, it is suggested that “are over” be replaced with “extend over” for clarity. At claim 2, line 13, it is suggested that “the end” be replaced with “an end” as the limitation has not been introduced. At claim 2, line 15, it is suggested that “the two passing orifices” be replaced with “the two through orifices” for consistency with line 4. At claim 2, line 16, it is suggested that “the other end” be replaced with “an opposite end” as the limitation has not been introduced. At claim 2, line 17, it is suggested that “and on two inner walls of the two second peripheral plates” be replaced with “on two respective inner walls of each of the two second peripheral plates” for clarity. At claim 2, line 19, it is suggested that “using” be deleted for clarity. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: A/the “massaging unit” in claim 1, which is interpreted relative to the instant specification at paragraph 19 to include massage rollers disposed on a sheet, and functional equivalents thereof. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.— The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Primary Examiner notes that each of the following claims will be interpreted in accordance with any suggestions made to overcome the rejections. Regarding claim 1, at line 4 the phrase “ two actuation blocks fitted on the two driving shafts ” renders the claim indefinite. This is because it is unclear whether each driving shaft includes two actuation blocks, or if a respective one actuation block is fitted on a respective one driving shaft. Per Figure 2 of the instant specification, it appears as though each individual actuation block 14 is meant to pair with a single driving shaft 131. In order to overcome the rejection, it is suggested that “ two actuation blocks fitted on the two driving shafts ” be replaced with “two actuation blocks, each fitted on a respective one of the two driving shafts”. Claims 2-6 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1. Regarding claim 1, lines 5-6 recites “ the two actuation blocks have two eccentric posts extending outward from two outer walls of the two actuation blocks ” which renders the claim indefinite. This is because it is unclear whether each actuation block includes two eccentric post and two outer walls, or if each actuation block includes a respective eccentric post and outer wall. Per Figure 2 of the instant specification, it appears that each actuation block 14 includes a single eccentric post 141. In order to overcome the rejection, it is suggested that “ the two actuation blocks have two eccentric posts extending outward from two outer walls of the two actuation blocks ” be replaced with “each of the two actuation blocks includes an eccentric post extending outward from an outer wall thereof”. Claims 2-6 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1. Regarding claim 1, lines 7-15 recite the limitation “ two swing arms, and a respective one swing arm including a drive segment formed on an end of the respective one swing arm, the respective one swing arm including a driven segmenting formed on the other end of the respective one swing arm opposite to the drive segment, the drive segment having a fixing orifice defined on a side of the drive segment and configured to rotatably connect with a respective one eccentric post of a respective one actuation block, and a massaging unit connected on the drive segment, wherein the driven segment of the respective one swing arm has an actuating shaft extending outward from an outer wall of the drive segment ” and line 28 recites the limitation “ the other actuating shafts ” which together render the claim indefinite. As outlined in lines 7-15, only a single swing arm is limited to include a drive segment, a driven segment, a fixing orifice, a massaging unit, and an actuating shaft, wherein the respective swing arm is further limited to be in connection with a respective eccentric post of a respective actuation block. However, the limitation at line 28 seems to indicate that there exists a second actuating shaft, which has not been introduced as claim 1 is presently construed. Thus, it is unclear whether lines 7-15 are meant to limit each swing arm, or if “ the other swing arm ” is erroneously introduced. In order to overcome the rejection, it is suggested that lines 7-15 are amended to read: “ two swing arms, wherein each respective one swing arm includ es: a drive segment formed on an end of the respective one swing arm, a driven segment formed on an opposite end of the respective one swing arm opposite to the drive segment, the drive segment having a fixing orifice defined on a side of the drive segment and configured to rotatably connect with a respective one eccentric post of a respective one actuation block, and a massaging unit connected on the drive segment, wherein the driven segment of each respective one swing arm has an actuating shaft extending outward from an outer wall of the drive segment ”. Further, it is suggested that lines 28’s “the other actuating shafts” be replaced with “a second actuating shaft” for clarity. Claims 2-6 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1. Regarding claim 1, line 26 recites the limitation “ the second case ” which lacks antecedent basis in the claim. Given that claim 2, from which claim 1 depends, newly recites “a second case” in line 2, it is unclear whether the second case is erroneously introduced in claim 1 and should be deleted therefrom, or if “the second case” should be replaced with “a second case”. Claims 2-6 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1. Regarding claim 2, line 2 recites “ a second case ” which renders the claim indefinite because “ the second case ” is introduced in line 26 of claim 1. It is therefore unclear whether this second case in claim 2 is a new second case or refers to the same second case in claim 1. Claim 3 is rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 2. Regarding claim 2, lines 5-7 recite the limitations “ two through orifices formed beside the open segment of the first case and passing through the two peripheral plates, and two first bearings fixed on the other end of the first case away from the open segment and on two inner walls of the two first peripheral plates ” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether there are two through orifices for each peripheral plate, or a single through orifice for a respective peripheral plate, and whether there are two respective first bearings per inner wall, or a single bearing per each respective inner wall, and whether there are two inner walls per peripheral plate, or a respective inner wall for each peripheral plate. In order to overcome the rejection, it is suggested that the phrase be replaced with “ two through orifices formed beside the open segment of the first case and each passing through one of the two periph eral plates, and two first bearings fixed on an opposite end of the first case away from the open segment and each located on a respective inner wall of each of the two first peripheral plates ”. Claim 3 is rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 2. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-6 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action, and if the claim objections and the drawing objections were additionally overcome. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest identified prior art documents of record are Huang (CN 115192403), Xie (CN 216394648), Choi (KR 2021/0029740), Wu (CN 112402235), Mu (CN 111298366), Chen (CN 209611693), Zheng (CN 109091358), Lin (CN 106943299), and Weiler (WO 2008/007015) . Huang includes an actuation block assembly ( see Fig. 4 ) that includes an actuation block ( 4 ) with an eccentric post ( 42 ) for connection with a driving shaft ( 23 ) and a worm wheel ( 22 ) in connection with a motor ( 21 ), a massage unit ( see 3 in Fig. 2 ), and additional first and second massagers ( see each of 7 in Fig.2 ). However, Huang does not outline the series of structural components connecting the massage unit portion to each of the massagers in a reciprocal fashion. Instead, each of the massage portions are separate from each other, as best seen in Figure 3. Xie was cited in the Korean patent office as pertinent prior art. While Figure 10 appears to illustrate several shafts and hinged connection between the shafts, based on the interpretation of a massage unit under 35 USC 112(f) above, and the presence of first and second massagers, Xie does not appear to contemplate all three massage portions as claimed. Choi shows a similar structure as in Huang. Because of this, Xie inherits the same deficiencies as Huang, where the multiple massage units are not connected pivotably as recited in the claims, as best seen in Figure 7. Wu includes a motor at the center of the unit as seen in Figure 1. Wu additionally includes several massage portions ( see Fig. 6, where each parallel connection can be taken as a massager ). But much like Huang and Choi, the multiple massage units are not connected pivotably as recited in the claims, because each massager is singly connected at one end instead to a transmission, and no reciprocal movement is recited about a shaft. Mu includes a central attachment with pivotal connection to a motor as seen in Figure 1, but does not outline a massage unit per the interpretation under 112(f) above in addition to the first and second claimed massagers ( where the massagers could be taken as elements 3 in Fig. 1 ). Chen includes a motor at the center of the unit as seen in Figure 1. Chen additionally includes several massage portions ( see Fig. 1, left and right elements 52 ). But the multiple massage units are not connected pivotably as recited in the claims to a massage unit near the motor. Zheng, as best seen in Figures 3-4, includes a central motor ( 01 ), with left and right massage units connected thereto ( see combination of heads 84+94 on either side of the motor 01 ), and additionally contemplates the hinged attachment of first and second massagers ( see lowest-most left and right heads 94 ). Zheng does not include two separate driving shafts, as motor shaft worm 02 is described as unitary, and does not include actuation blocks with walls and eccentric posts, as worm 02 connects to gear 11, nor the fixing shafts or protrusions of the first and second massagers. Zheng includes three separate massage portions, with two of the three connected at one end to a motor, and the middle massage portion being connected on an opposite side from its connection with the motor with each of the additional massagers by virtue of gear and pulley arrangements ( see Fig. 2 ). However, Zheng does not include eccentric posts, and given the simplicity of the overall structure, Zheng cannot contemplate all three of the swing arms, driving shafts, and massage unit. Weiler is cited for its structure at motor 17, pulleys 18, and drive bels 19 in Figure 2, but does not contemplate each of the first and second massagers in addition to the claimed massage unit. Thus, the prior art identified fails to anticipate and/or render obvious the combination of elements presented in independent claim 1. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT PAIGE BUGG whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-8053 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 9-5 . Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Kendra Carter can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-9034 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /PAIGE KATHLEEN BUGG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785